In declaring secession illegal, and the U.S. a consolidated state, Lincoln enacted the first income tax and the first draft, and supported internal improvements and nationalizing banks. Such centralizing, socialistic, and militaristic restructuring of America was certainly more comparable to the fascism that defined Hitler’s Germany than the agrarian-based economies and loose-knit state militias that defined the Confederate States of America.

Look, four political leaders in all of world history have favored an income tax and internal improvements: Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Barack HUSSEIN Obama. You do the math!

And, of course, let us not forget the real reason for southern secession, and why it occurred not after the election of Abraham Lincoln but after the egregious federal overreaching of the Fugitive Slave Act:

Dissuading the South from seceding by promising to protect slavery didn’t work, because the issue was secondary to the primary issue of constitutional government and states’ rights. Southerners clung to the Founding Fathers’ vision of a decentralized republic in which central planning, federal dictates, and permanent standing armies would have been impossible because the Constitution did not allow for a national government powerful enough to implement such measures.

This was in fact one of Lincoln’s arguments against the legality of secession–that the Aticles of Confedration were the founding document of the United States, predating the Cosntitution, and specified perpetual union.

Right, Lincoln’s second premise being that the Constitution promises a “more perfect” union. From which he reasonably inferred that if the less perfect version was already perpetual, it was not likely that the more perfect version would merely be a temp job.

It’s amazing how many of the horrible arguments that neo-Confederates trot out were already answered in the 1st Inaugural.

In my experience, a lot of this sort of libertarian likes to take the approach downplaying constitutional law altogether and focusing on (their own peculiar interpretation of) natural law and pre-1776 English common law. I suppose some of that might be leaking into the conservatives in the Supreme Court with all this vague nonsense about state sovereignty, but it’s a very different style.

The railroad was built and operated by private corporations, for their own profit.. The government compensated them for the construction effort by awarding them a checkerboard of land grants near the route. I don’t see that as public transit, nor especially socialist.

Relatedly, national parks were established, in large part, to help drum up tourism ridership for the railroads.

But the socialist (it is the National Socialist German Workers Party, libtards) Hitler admired Lincoln and despised the South. Or it was the other way around, can’t really remember.
Anyway, what matters is that the Volksgerichtshof wasn’t Originalist enough.

Well, states’ rights were a huge issue in the lead up to the war, with the South insisting on federal legislation requiring return of fugitive slaves, and the North saying it was a matter for the states. Similarly, the South argued that the 5th amendment protected their property rights in slaves wherever they were taken (the poor South Carolina planters unable to summer in the Hamptons with their slaves!), while the North thought slavery was a matter for the states. It was over the issue of using federal power to support expansion of slavery into new territories that the South eventually tried to leave. So, yeah, in a sense, the war was about states’ rights, but as usual, the right has all he issues backwrds.

And this continued right up to the very end; in December 1860, when Congress sought a compromise that would prevent secession, Senator Jefferson Davis proposed a “compromise” amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing slaveowners the right to take their “property” anywhere in the United States they liked, for as long as they liked. In short, he wanted to strip free states of their power to prohibit slavery. So much for “states rights”!

Hunter isn’t very good at this. I mean, “Internal improvements” sounds like good things, like they make stuff better than it was before. A real wingnut would call them something like “internazi impravdaments”, so you’d know only nazi/commie/libtards want them.

Shhh, don’t tell Randy Barnett and the echo chamber over at Volokh, where they have been arguing for weeks that “libertarianism” and neo-Confederate don’t have to go hand-in-hand. Won’t someone rid them of this troubling 25-30 percent of their followers

Is there anything, anything at all, that the WingNut won’t compare to Hitler?

No.

Now that he is gone has been martyred on the fiery cross of Liberal persecution, I regret the fact no one will ever get to ask him if the GOP is the party of Hitler.

Like this, from 2009, when Hunter was a mere pip[squeak?] of 35.

A little noted aspect of Homo Conservativus is the rate at which the males mature in relation to every other human being. So while females and all minorities may be treated adults at the age of 12 or so, it is unfair to expect the conservative male to drop his carefree boyish outlook and take up the responsibilities of an adult until he dies of old age.

Wait. Only 62 replies and no Paulistas here to assure us that Paul family racism is a lie? That somebody else wrote those things Hunter said? What has this world come to? And is it wrong that I kind of miss the days when a post like this would have resulted in 364 comments and Malaclypse making me laugh 8 times?

I know that Ron is the true cult leader but can’t there be some kind of hereditary succession thing going on with that too? It is quite in vogue at the moment.

[…] of Jack Hunter, a.k.a. “Southern Avenger.” Hunter was recently forced to step down as a staffer for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul because his right-wing views were regarded as too extreme for Paul’s tea-party supporters and […]